Re: Bug#694923: better / alternative image distribution
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 12:29:10PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 02, Stefano Zacchiroli <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > That would allow mirroring, would reduce
> > worries of being "shaped down" by specific cloud providers if we exceed some
> Is this actually a real concern? As a cloud provider, I find hard to
> believe that one would damage their customers this way.
I also don't see much of that scenario. Either for private clouds, what
an AMI really offer is a software component that will be used on your
platform and people will rely on. You, as provider, don't want to loose
> > traffic thresholds and, generally, benefit our independence from specific
> > providers.
> > Next action on this: contact debian-cd, point them to some of the images we
> > already have (only EC2 at the moment) and ask their take about including them
> > in the usual "CD"/media mirror network.
> Are the EC2 images also usable as is on other Amazon-like cloud
> infrastructures? If they are not, then I do not see the point of using
> our own resources for the benefit of a specific cloud provider.
EC2 AMIs can be converted to EMIs (Eucalyptus). This also has to
do with the fact that Eucalyptus is API-compatible with Amazon EC2.